A few thoughts on the state of pro wrestling

oneofakind32

Right now the WWE has no one idividual top talent that the fans and company can agree is the best in the business at the moment.
Im talking about a Bret Hart or a Kurt Angle (In there hay-days).
All there real talent is being poorly used.
After watching the 2nd primetime Impact show, it seems like TNA have a very decent package. Samoa Jeo amd AJ Styles are 2 undeniable talents who have the potential to cary the company to bigger things. I had my reservations about Sting in the begining but he seems to still be compitent in the ring and he has the crowd behind him. The VKM gimmik that the james gang are doing is pritty entertaining. Just to see what happens with them is reason enough for me to watch again next week. There biggest problem is that they only have a 2 hour show

Vince135792003

oneofakind32 wrote:

There biggest problem is that they only have a 2 hour show

Thats nowhere near there biggest problem. There biggest problems are

- they have never been profitable annually.
- there wrestling is good sometimes really good but the booking is rubbish.
- Vince Russo on the booking committee (reverse battle royal anyone??).
- a lot of people don't even know they exist.
- there ratings are not growing. They got a 1.0 for their prime time debut. Sting in January debuted at a 1.1
- they run very few house shows.
- they run in the same building 99% of the time. The people get in free too.

You don't need 2 hours to have a successful wrestling show.

Minto

oneofakind32 wrote:

Right now the WWE has no one idividual top talent that the fans and company can agree is the best in the business at the moment.

I disagree.....I think Triple H is one of the best in the business at the moment! You can argue that hes only where he is because of the fact that he is married to Steph, but he has mic skills and wrestling ability, he can go for 45 minutes, he can carry a guy (look at his matches versus Batista from 2005 and the ones Batista had against JBL, and you'll see what I mean) and he has, in his own words, "beaten them all"! There isn't a great superstar in the business, whom he hasn't had, in my opinion, a great match with!

Also, there is some up and comers like Carlito, Shelton, Punk, Lashley, Edge and maybe even Test.

Mr.Nice Guy

oneofakind32 wrote:

Right now the WWE has no one idividual top talent that the fans and company can agree is the best in the business at the moment.
Im talking about a Bret Hart or a Kurt Angle (In there hay-days).
All there real talent is being poorly used.
After watching the 2nd primetime Impact show, it seems like TNA have a very decent package. Samoa Jeo amd AJ Styles are 2 undeniable talents who have the potential to cary the company to bigger things. I had my reservations about Sting in the begining but he seems to still be compitent in the ring and he has the crowd behind him. The VKM gimmik that the james gang are doing is pritty entertaining. Just to see what happens with them is reason enough for me to watch again next week. There biggest problem is that they only have a 2 hour show

I agree with most of that but I think the VKM gimmick is awful personally.

I think TNA's biggest problem is that under Russo it seems they are trying to do things the WWE way. The reverse battle royal idea was woefully bad and wouldn't have been allowed by Vince in my view. Then you have Eric Young set to go up against Tracy Brooks ina bikini contest (ugh) as well as the dumb idea to strip LAX of the tag titles which they appear to have scrapped after the crowd crapped all over the idea. Typical Russo garbage.

I think they need to provide an alternative to WWE instead of coming across like the little dog picking a fight with the big dog.

As for Minto's remarks on Triple H, I can recall him having some stinkers with Steiner and Goldberg in 2003. I think HHH is very good but I wouldn't rank him in the class of HBK or Benoit.

Minto

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

As for Minto's remarks on Triple H, I can recall him having some stinkers with Steiner and Goldberg in 2003. I think HHH is very good but I wouldn't rank him in the class of HBK or Benoit.

No offence, but I wouldn't rank Steiner or Goldberg as great superstars, but I agree those matches were horrible! I have lots of respect for HBK and Benoit, but Benoit lacks the personality and mic skills of Triple H and HBK is a little passed his prime. Although he had an absolute killer match againt Kurt Angle at 'Mania 21 and the RAW Homecoming!

Mr.Nice Guy

Do mic skills really matter? Nobody seems to comment on Bruno Sammartino's mic skills when they refer to him as one of the greats.

I can't speak for anyone else but I watch wrestling for wrestling not for mic skills.

I also wouldn't say HBK is past his prime as he carried Vince McMahon to a very good match at Mania earlier this year. I'm not sure Triple H can carry a bad wrestler the way other greats can.

Minto

To me, yes they do matter.....In the world of sports entertainment, you can't have one without the other, it's a real shame that pro wrestling as wrestling is dying, but we've gotta look forward to the future, which is to me at least, is sports entertainment!

Mr.Nice Guy

Minto wrote:

To me, yes they do matter.....In the world of sports entertainment, you can't have one without the other, it's a real shame that pro wrestling as wrestling is dying, but we've gotta look forward to the future, which is to me at least, is sports entertainment!

Well I disagree I think the future is wrestling as 'sports entertainment' has seen its high point come and go and is dying. You only need to check the current ratings of 'sports entertainment' to see the drop off in recent years.

The future of this industry in my opinion will be built upon the shoulders of wrestlers and not 'entertainers', ie guys like Samoa Joe, CM Punk, AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, Bryan Danielson etc as opposed to 'sports entertainers' like The Miz, MVP and so forth.

The biggest match 'sports entertainment' can hype these days is John Cena vs Kevin Federline.

Me? I'll take Samoa Joe vs Kurt Angle or Joe vs Bryan Danielson instead. I'll take wrestling.

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Do mic skills really matter? Nobody seems to comment on Bruno Sammartino's mic skills when they refer to him as one of the greats.
/QUOTE]


I still don't know what sports entertainment is. If its the Rock doing a promo, I like it. If its MVP, the Miz, the guy in a dress, i hate it.

But I don't think it should be the case of one or the other. Mic skills or wrestling. You need both to promote shows and to have entertaining wrestling shows.

Tito Ortiz is the biggest drawing guy out there right now (wrestling/MMA/and perhaps even boxing). The reason is not because he's a great fighter and he might be. Its because he has an incredible ability to annoy people when he talks.

Ortiz and Shamrock did not do 700,000 buys because people knew it would be a great fight or that the outcome was in doubt. They did it through their ability to promote a fight through their "promo" ability.

From a wrestling perspective, Bruno Samartino was on top at at a time when the WWWE was still a regional promotion. Ethnicity was a big factor back then in McMahon seniors decision to push people.

Ric Flair did not just keep the NWA a float through his ring work. His promo skills were just as important. And thats just one example.

The most successful wrestlers have more often than not had it in the ring and on the mic ie. Austin, Flair, Funk.

Larry David

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Do mic skills really matter? Nobody seems to comment on Bruno Sammartino's mic skills when they refer to him as one of the greats.

eh, that was 40 years ago. I would say "times have changed" to you, but if you haven't realised that, you're a lost cause.

Mr.Nice Guy

Larry David wrote:

eh, that was 40 years ago. I would say "times have changed" to you, but if you haven't realised that, you're a lost cause.

My point had nothing to do with the passage of time but rather the criteria for what determines a great. In 40 years time people are more likely to remember Chris Benoit's great matches than the mic work of someone like Kevin Nash.

Larry David

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

My point had nothing to do with the passage of time but rather the criteria for what determines a great. In 40 years time people are more likely to remember Chris Benoit's great matches than the mic work of someone like Kevin Nash.

I disagree with that ignorant & unfounded blanket statement. People also remember great mic guys like Piper, Dusty, Georgeous George, etc, etc, just as much as good workers are remembered. I'll remember a great Rock or Austin promo, as fondly as I'd remember a great Benoit match.

Mr.Nice Guy

Larry David wrote:

I disagree with that ignorant & unfounded blanket statement. People also remember great mic guys like Piper, Dusty, Georgeous George, etc, etc, just as much as good workers are remembered. I'll remember a great Rock or Austin promo, as fondly as I'd remember a great Benoit match.

It's neither ignorant nor unfounded. If I were to ask you to name five great promos from forty years ago I wager you'd struggle more than if I asked you to name five great matches from fifty years ago.

And for the record Piper, Dusty and Gorgeous George were able to actually wrestle as well as talk.

Talk is cheap, it's in the ring where it counts.

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Talk is cheap,

I disagree. Being able to do a promo (ie. to promote a match well) is pretty valuable in 2006. And not many have it.

Could Dusty and Piper wrestle? Of course. But when I think of Dusty or Piper I think "what great talkers they were".

Dusty was a top guy in this industry for that very reason. He could talk people into the building.

I'm not trying to minimise the wrestling side of it. That's obviously a very big deal as well.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

I disagree. Being able to do a promo (ie. to promote a match well) is pretty valuable in 2006. And not many have it.

Could Dusty and Piper wrestle? Of course. But when I think of Dusty or Piper I think "what great talkers they were".

Dusty was a top guy in this industry for that very reason. He could talk people into the building.

I'm not trying to minimise the wrestling side of it. That's obviously a very big deal as well.

It's all well and good talking people into the building but if you stink up the joint with your performances then the people don't come back do they?

I'm not saying mic work has no place in wrestling, I'm saying that when you're judging the criteria for a wrestling great it's not that important.

If you're bad on the mic and good in the ring then you can still go down in history as one of the best of all time. But if you're good on the mic and bad in the ring, ie Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner etc then that's not the case.

In forty years time who will be regarded as wrestling legends? Chris Benoit and Rey Mysterio or Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner?

See my point?

Charlie

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Chris Benoit and Rey Mysterio or Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner?

You're giving examples of guys who's mic work was average at best in order to try and improve your point. I certainly can't remember a stand out promo by either of those chumps.

Give me Scott Hall, Chris Jericho, The Rock or Steve Austin and then your argument isn't as appealling. Putting it simply, I personally would rather watch Jake the Snake then Rey.

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It's all well and good talking people into the building but if you stink up the joint with your performances then the people don't come back do they?

I'm not saying mic work has no place in wrestling, I'm saying that when you're judging the criteria for a wrestling great it's not that important. Promos are apart of the foundation of wrestling, boxing and MMA. Always have always will.

If you're bad on the mic and good in the ring then you can still go down in history as one of the best of all time. But if you're good on the mic and bad in the ring, ie Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner etc then that's not the case.

In forty years time who will be regarded as wrestling legends? Chris Benoit and Rey Mysterio or Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner?

See my point?

I totally know what your saying. I just think your downplaying the importance of promos. It has a huge part to play in wrestling.

You use the example of Kevin Nash and I agree. But take Dusty Rhodes. He'll go down as a wrestling great primarily for his promo ability. He was good in the ring but that guy was off the charts on the mic and thats why he'll go down as a legend because he could give great money promos.

Another example is Super Star Billy Graham. He'll go down as a great for selling MSG out 17 out of 18 times or whatever it is. Was he a great wrestler? He'll admit himself that he wasn't but he was able to draw money with his look, his personality and his promos.

Wrestling is about drawing money. Its a business. If you draw lots of money you'll be remembered as a great regardless of how you did it (by your look, your wrestling, your mic work or a combination of all 3).

Final note, Scott Steiner was an excellent wrestler at his peak. Get on e-bay and buy some WCW tapes around 1991. He had a lot of great matches. Meltzer compared him to a Kurt Angle of the 1990's recently.

Fozzy

Mic skills do help an awful lot. The help the fan to believe in the character and get emotionally involved in their situations. Mick Foley is one of the best mic workers ever, and I find myself more emotionally involved in his matches than some guy who I might be seeing for the first time who is a great wrestler. Another case I can think of personally is Chris Jericho. I didn't like him on the mic at all when he came to the WWF. He annoyed me a lot, and I couldn't stand most of his matches, mainly because of that. I just didn't like the guy. Then with his heel turn (around the time of his Undisputed Championship reign) I found myself really enjoying his promos. And as a result I started to like the guy and then I found myself really enjoying his matches

What I'm saying is that talk is mainly what makes you feel a connection with a wrestler, and when you've got that connection it makes a good wrestler putting on a good match turn into a great wrestler putting on a great match

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It's all well and good talking people into the building but if you stink up the joint with your performances then the people don't come back do they?

Hogan's been proving your point wrong all his life

Charlie

Whilst I agree with all you said an the importance of being good on the mic, I kinda disagree with you about Hogan.

Fozzy wrote:

Hogan's been proving your point wrong all his life

Funnily enough, I don't find that Hogan's promo's do anything for me. I think in this and age (and even going back as far as '98) his promo routine is very stale and 1980ish. I think his pulling power is his mainstream noterity and, those that want to come see the man, the myth, the legend, who supposedly built wresting.

I hate it when wrestlers alter how their voice sounds when they cut a promo or, as Scott Hall put it onetime, the angry wrestler promo.

Fozzy

Oh, I can't stand Hogan, even as a kid I didn't like him. But it's obviously his promos that got him all the fans he has, and which basically made the business as big as it became

nacho libre

I was a watching some old promos of 'The Rock' recently on you tube they really miss him at present. I don't think there is any wrestler at the moment cutting promos like he was. Chris Benoit is the exeception to the rule but generally if you can't do good promos you won't make to the top tier on wrestling ability alone.
A good example of this is Lance Storm, one of the best technical wrestlers but a disaster on the mic.

Mr.Nice Guy

charliemchugh wrote:

You're giving examples of guys who's mic work was average at best in order to try and improve your point. I certainly can't remember a stand out promo by either of those chumps.

Wrong, I used Nash and Steiner as examples sinces they are generally regarded (maybe not by you) as good on the mic and bad in the ring. My point was that being good on the mic doesn't necessarily equate to greatness and that in a few decades these former World champions will be eclipsed by the memory of great wrestlers such as Benoit, Rey, and so on...

charliemchugh wrote:

Give me Scott Hall, Chris Jericho, The Rock or Steve Austin and then your argument isn't as appealling.

But those guys were good wrestlers so it wouldn't make much sense to have cited them since my argument is that mic skills aren't important when judging the greatness of a wrestler. Understand now?

charliemchugh wrote:

Putting it simply, I personally would rather watch Jake the Snake then Rey.

I take it you meant to say you'd rather listen to Jake the Snake than watch Rey but I'd personally disagree with you on that as well.

Vince135792003 wrote:

I totally know what your saying. I just think your downplaying the importance of promos. It has a huge part to play in wrestling.

You use the example of Kevin Nash and I agree. But take Dusty Rhodes. He'll go down as a wrestling great primarily for his promo ability. He was good in the ring but that guy was off the charts on the mic and thats why he'll go down as a legend because he could give great money promos.

Another example is Super Star Billy Graham. He'll go down as a great for selling MSG out 17 out of 18 times or whatever it is. Was he a great wrestler? He'll admit himself that he wasn't but he was able to draw money with his look, his personality and his promos.

Wrestling is about drawing money. Its a business. If you draw lots of money you'll be remembered as a great regardless of how you did it (by your look, your wrestling, your mic work or a combination of all 3).

Perhaps I have downplayed the importance of mic work which was not my intention. It's just that if Triple H for example is to be regarded as a better wrestler than Benoit, and the argument to justify that is his good mic work, I find that a pretty flawed point of view.

charliemchugh wrote:

Final note, Scott Steiner was an excellent wrestler at his peak. Get on e-bay and buy some WCW tapes around 1991. He had a lot of great matches. Meltzer compared him to a Kurt Angle of the 1990's recently.

Yes I later felt bad about citing Steiner since he was part of a great tag team in that era. To be lumped in with Kevin Nash is very harsh indeed.

Fozzy wrote:

Hogan's been proving your point wrong all his life

I wouldn't say hogan has 'stunk up the joint' with his skills. Clearly he's very limited in the ring but over the years he's found a way to wrestle a style that keeps the fans interested.

oneofakind32

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I agree with most of that but I think the VKM gimmick is awful personally.

When I saw it first I though maybe it wasnt such a good idea but after seeing last weeks segments I think the VMK gimmik has more of an Anarchic feel to it then the current DX rehash. When DX go after mc mahon its just the same old scripted stuff that we have been seeing on WWE since Austin first stood up to vince all thoose years ago.

I though Eric Young in a turkey suite was pritty funny.
The titals change hands a little to frequently for my liking but I suppose they are trying to provide a faster moving alternitive to WWE. They have good number of wrestlers who can pass for a champ (Sting, Christean, Abyss, AJ, Joe, Angle) so why not They can still build good matches Joe Angle being a prime example

Impact has a spontinatity that WWE TV is laking and has been for a while

Charlie

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I take it you meant to say you'd rather listen to Jake the Snake than watch Rey but I'd personally disagree with you on that as well.

I meant I would rather watch a Jake Roberts feud then one of Rey's anyday. I find Rey to be awful on the mic and also an over-rated wrestler. There was another thread that mentioned people doing over elaborate acrobatatic moves, that look good, but essentially there end reslut would be minimal. I find Rey to be guilty of this. He has had some good matches, such as his match with Eddie in WCW at Halloween Havoc but, today, I find his matches higly repititive and somewhat guilty of being a spot fest. He is above the average "superstar" that WWE have (but thats not really a standard to be judged by) but cannot, in my view, be condsidered great like many would consider Benoit to be.

Vince135792003

charlie mchugh wrote:

I find Rey to be awful on the mic and also an over-rated wrestler.

Oh boy, I don't really want to get involved in this one.

But just to make one point. Wrestlers are a product of where they come from. Some people like lucha. Some don't. But in Rey's defense he's had a lot of good/great matches this year that have told stories ie. matches with Orton, Angle,Henry and JBL.

Plus you can't deny how much he has achieved. He's a dead cert wrestling observer hall of famer when he becomes eligible next year. Calling him above average, when you break it down, doesn't hold up.

A guy his size, in a market like America, would not have gotten as far as he has if he was just above average.